Defence of Intelligent Design

The reason evolutionists don't like the Intelligent Design theory is the very reason no doctorate in basic or applied science will debate Walt Brown, evolutionists want to debate theology, when the issue is does Science support Intelligent design, or Evolution.The evidence supports Intelligent Design, so when you write your paper, be sure to include that Intelligent Design refuses to get dragged into a theological debate, its only concerned with the scientific evidences, for design, and that micro-evolution, genetics, all the micro-biology in the creatures is more evidence that life was intelligently designed, etc...You could bring up, to identify any creature, tree, insect, fish, you only need to go to the library to find their scientific name, there is no new kinds of creatures being formed, in fact the fossil record shows from the millions of creatures, fish, insects, reptiles, etc...they reproduce only like kind creatures, which came onto the fossil record fully formed, so the lack of millions of transitional fossils needed to support toe, is a big strike against evolutionists, and supporting they were designed, I suppose hippo fossils could be infered to of been a whale that walked, a pigs tooth could be infered to be a missing link, its these kind of problems with their missing links, which is why evolutionists want to drag religion into the theory of Intelligent Design.You could mention how the dog micro-evolving from the wolf is an example of Intelligent Design, that by inbreeding the wolf micro-evolved into the many different dog species, but this in no way is evidence to support evolution that new genes were created, in fact breeders of cattle will get a new bull, every couple of years, so recessive genes from inbreeding, will not cause their cattle to become sickly, that this is all part of micro-evolution(Intelligent Design Theory), how the different creatures because of inbreeding, causes all the variations of the dogs, cats, cattle, etc...Wish you well on your project, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You seriously believe that there's no new species? There's as many transitional fossils as there are fossils, because every organism is "transitional." You're the transitional organism between your parents and your children.

We can only hope that s/he has no children.

---

Common sense isn't

So you say that people don't like ID because Walt Brown won't let anyone take up his phoney debate challenge ? What makes you think that ID is blamed for Walt Brown's behaviour ?

The reason intelligent design creationism doesn't get the respect it deserves in scientific circles is that it's not scientific. Has intelligent agency ever been observed to create a tree? A baby? Any natural organism or structure thereof?There are as many types of IDC as there are supporters of the notion. You seem to say that species have not evolved by any mechanism, but there are prominent IDC'ers that claim they have no problem with the notion of species evolution in general. Michael Behe, on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box, claims that he sees no reason to doubt the hypothesis of common ancestry. He merely argues that Darwinian natural selection can't account for the evolution of certain biochemical structures. If the Bible of IDC says that, why are you arguing against it?So do you have evidence that the 'mechanism' of intelligent design is capable of producing organisms or species? Please provide us with your support.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-22-2004]

Whatever: This has been dealt with repeatedly. You should try reading sometime...you might learn something. WTF are you talking about? ID is nothing but theology. And why do you never answer the questions that are asked of you? Come on for once just answer what was asked, and stopped making stuff up as you go along. Give me any scientific evidence to support creationism and intelligent design. Any. Any at all. One piece. Please. Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong and WrongWell, whatever, by my count you are 0 for 7 in trying to find fault with the ToE and support for intelligent design. Also I noticed that you did manage to completely avoid answering any questions that I asked of you (as a creationist, not you in particular)...but I'm not really that surprised. So now I will ask you directly: Please, in your reply to this post, give me scientific evidence that supports ID and tell me how the ToE violates the scientific method. Please.

PaulK, It is interesting that no doctorate scientists believes the scientific evidences support evolution enough to debate Walt, on his challenge, does the scientific evidence support creationism or evolution, etc...Its been over 23 years, and all you have is that they want to include religion which would make the debate meaningless(off topic), which is of course what the evolutionists are trying to do to Intelligent Design, to move it off topic, and why the Intelligent Design movement has no interest in debating theology, etc...

If Whatever starts posting pictures of nebulae, I'm calling a violation of forum rule 8.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

The facts are that Joe Meert signed the agreement, knowing that the editor could decide against him and agreeing to go ahead with the debate in that event. Brown on the other hand won't even let the decision go to the editor.Brown refuses to debate.

FliesOnly, If it wasn't due to the exoskeleton of the insects, it would be possible for insects to micro-evolve into large creatures, just one of the many evidences of Intelligent Design, a part of their being limiting their size, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

Only a few doctorate scientists are willing to debate Walt because:1. Debates don't matter except to the great unwashed. Debates do not decide truth.2. Debating crackpots like Walt is a waste of time that could better be spent doing useful things.3. There's no sicentific basis on which to debate Walt, all he's got is theology ... he refuses to debate on what he's got.This is, of course, terrifically off topic. Walt Brown has nothing to do with intelligent design, or intelligence, or design.

PaulK, We all know that Joe wanted to include religion, which he wasn't qualified to debate, etc...

Joe Meert isn't out to DEBATE religion at all. What he DOES want to do is to show how Brown's religious beleifs influence his conclusions. And it is entirely likely that the reason for condition 4 is to conceal just that. Does that explain why Brown is running scared ?

We all know that Walt wants to support creation, a religious view of science. So if Walt were to debate, he couldn't hold creation as an alternative to evolution, yet he wants to argue just that. It seems Walt is in violation of his own rules from the outset. All Meert was doing is pointing to the basis of his theories, the Genesis account, and giving Walt the opportunity to talk about the basis of his theories. It seems Walt is afraid to do this and has ducked the debate with Meert.If you want a continuation of this discussion, I would suggest opening a new thread. But just remember, reiterating that Meert wanted to bring religion into the debate is missing the overwhelming religious push that Walt wanted to bring to the table.

Here is the link to the ORIGINAL debate offer from Brownhttp://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.htmlItem 22 is the item in question. This is the offer that Joe signed.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodIf you click the 328 in the "Written Debate" section of this page and then click "next" at the bottom of the next page, you will come to the "NEW" debate offer. Item 16 of this new offer is the item now referring to modification of the debate.You will notice that the original offer, item 22, refers only to modifications.The new offer, item 16, refers to "procedural" modifications.Joe, realizing that the flood was the basis for Walt's hypothesis, wanted this brought out in a limited section of the publicized debate. The basis for any theory being up for debate. He was also willing to forgo this at the request of the editor.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato